2010 debates: Clowns to the left, jokers to the right

In Pennsylvania, there was the showdown between two Senate candidates whose talking points had become so robotic that local reporters made up a drinking game, in which participants were required to chug every time the Democrat mentioned “China” or the Republican said “Pelosi.”

And then there was the frozen moment on a debate stage in Arizona, where incumbent Republican governor Jan Brewer was so tense that she paused for more than ten seconds, staring at the camera, looking at notes, then back at the camera, before finally speaking: “We have…did what was right for Arizona.”

Story Continued Below

Brewer probably has a measure of sympathy for Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York, who was asked at a candidate’s forum to “Please detail your deficit reduction priorities.” With a quizzical expression, Hinchey asked that the question be repeated, then confessed, “I’m not sure I know what you mean by that.”

2010, it turns out, will not go down as the year that Lincoln and Douglas got a run for their money.

But a range of dismayed and disgusted observers say it is on track to make debate history in other ways. The gap between the ideal of debates—thoughtful, probing, spontaneous affairs that illuminate serious differences between candidates and their ideas—and the reality of debates has rarely, if ever, been more glaring.

Candidates clung desperately to talking points, seemingly indifferent when these did not bear even passing relevance to the question at hand. They lost their trains of thought. They fixed their opponents with peevish glares and snarled impatiently at one another. Nature called for one gubernatorial candidate, Republican Carl Paladino in New York, who left the stage to relieve himself during closing statements.

In the 34 years since debates became virtually mandatory at the presidential level, these encounters between candidates at all levels have become a nearly sacred ritual in the county’s democratic religion. Even when candidates would rather duck an opponent or their own skills at logical presentation or quick thinking would suggest that appearing in debate is unwise, civic piety usually requires accepting at least one debate invitation.

But some people are wondering if this reverence for tradition remains deserved, given the staleness and sometimes downright stupidity of many of this year’s debates. There were plenty of cringe-worthy moments, and some occasional comic relief. Yet an angry year produced few moments to make Pericles proud.

“The key for the candidate is simply to get through the debate without saying anything dumb,” said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. “It’s worse than theater. It’s really bad theater. It’s off, off, off Broadway. And it would close after a night. I don’t remember ever having seen this many debates where the candidate just went into orbit.”

There are a variety of reasons why debates migrated from the earnest, League of Women Voters-organized model that used to be the norm.

More statewide debates were moderated by national reporters who parachuted in from New York or Washington. Cable channels, more influential than during 2006, became more interested in broadcasting the debates with flamboyant candidates or a high likelihood of inflammatory moments.